Business-first GOP leaders are walking President Donald Trump into a post-election trap where he will be forced to approve more wage-cutting visa-worker programs if he wants an extra $3.4 billion for his border wall.

The cheap-labor legislation which is in the draft House appropriations bill would dramatically expand several visa-worker programs which suppress blue-collar wages and white-collar salaries. Before the election, Trump can pressure House Speaker Paul Ryan to drop those unpopular wage-cutting programs. But after the election, GOP leaders can offer extra border-wall funds to pressure Trump into accepting the cheap-labor programs.

But Yoderís bill also betrays Trump voters by giving business groups another huge inflow of cheap white-collar and blue-collar immigrant labor. Business donors want those cheap-labor programs to reverse the impact of Trumpís popular low-immigration policies which are pushing wages up before the 2018 and 2020 elections. In August, for example, votersí wages rose by 2.9 percent above 2017 levels as companies competed for workers and pushed up productivity.

ďThat is why the administration needs to be engaged with Congress and insist that the Yoder provisions are either be stripped in the Rules Committee or by a managerís amendment,Ē before the House approves Yoderís plan, said RJ Hauman, policy director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The President, Hauman added:

canít let it get to that point, and we certainly canít let it get to that point as well, because we fear the president will sign something that does contain that border wall funding despite the other things in it that fly in the face of his agenda.

Business-first GOP leaders are walking President Donald Trump into a post-election trap where he will be forced to approve more wage-cutting visa-worker programs if he wants an extra $3.4 billion for his border wall.

I'm not sure I'd call this a "Trap". And who says trump is being "forced"?

AS LONG AS the workers are coming in LEGALLY, let the free market sort out the wage issue.

The author is sounding a lot like a Big-Labor Democrat. Did this article really come from Breitbart???

2) Without these workers many of these industries and businesses might not be viable, which would mean the loss of all the other jobs associated with those businesses, managers, drivers, equipment manufactures, processors, etc. More immigrant working class labor creates more opportunities for middle class labor and jobs.

3) The flip side of lower wages is cheaper goods and services.

4) Some have asserted that people only have an issue with illegal immigration, not legal immigration. This is evidence to the contrary.

2) Without these workers many of these industries and businesses might not be viable, which would mean the loss of all the other jobs associated with those businesses, managers, drivers, equipment manufactures, processors, etc. More immigrant working class labor creates more opportunities for middle class labor and jobs.

3) The flip side of lower wages is cheaper goods and services.

4) Some have asserted that people only have an issue with illegal immigration, not legal immigration. This is evidence to the contrary.

Indeed.

It's really a simple choice: Either the workers come here, or the jobs go there.

There's is also a spill-over effect. Build a factory here, and even if ALL the low-level jobs are filled by immigrants, it still creates jobs for the engineers who design the factory, the skilled trades that build the factory, the supervisors and executives that run the factory, etc., etc.

2) Without these workers many of these industries and businesses might not be viable, which would mean the loss of all the other jobs associated with those businesses, managers, drivers, equipment manufactures, processors, etc. More immigrant working class labor creates more opportunities for middle class labor and jobs.

3) The flip side of lower wages is cheaper goods and services.

4) Some have asserted that people only have an issue with illegal immigration, not legal immigration. This is evidence to the contrary.

Why do you insinuate that conservatives arenít ďabout freee marketsĒ. I donít understand what that charge means in this context. Which conservatives are not in support of free markets?

2) Without these workers many of these industries and businesses might not be viable, which would mean the loss of all the other jobs associated with those businesses, managers, drivers, equipment manufactures, processors, etc. More immigrant working class labor creates more opportunities for middle class labor and jobs.

3) The flip side of lower wages is cheaper goods and services.

4) Some have asserted that people only have an issue with illegal immigration, not legal immigration. This is evidence to the contrary.

It's really a simple choice: Either the workers come here, or the jobs go there.

There's is also a spill-over effect. Build a factory here, and even if ALL the low-level jobs are filled by immigrants, it still creates jobs for the engineers who design the factory, the skilled trades that build the factory, the supervisors and executives that run the factory, etc., etc.

Exactly.

zurg, on 08 September 2018 - 01:34 PM, said:

Why do you insinuate that conservatives arenít ďabout freee marketsĒ. I donít understand what that charge means in this context. Which conservatives are not in support of free markets?

That's not what I insinuated. I insinuated that the position of the author of this article is inconsistent with a free market position.

Either conservatives aren't (always) about free markets OR this isn't a conservative position. It's not necessarily the former.

That's not what I insinuated. I insinuated that the position of the author of this article is inconsistent with a free market position.

Either conservatives aren't (always) about free markets OR this isn't a conservative position. It's not necessarily the former.

Well, to be exact, you asked that "aren't conservatives supposed to be about free markets?" You didn't say "isn't this author supposed to be about free markets?" Maybe that was your intention, but I couldn't get that from your statement.

Still, I think both you and Adam make a mistake in your claim about "free markets". Labor isn't in reality like goods. It's nowhere near as mobile and shippable. Furthermore, every country has national security laws and concerns, which limit movement of labor across borders. Strong national security is very much a conservative position. So to say that not allowing labor to cross the border is anti-conservative is just not true.

But if your and Adam's intention is to extend the discussion to a hypothetical world with no borders, and to discuss what a conservative position would look like in that kind of a world, that's fine for you, but it's not interesting at all to me at this time, because it's a complete hypothetical with almost no chance of becoming reality in anyone's lifetime who's alive today.

Well, to be exact, you asked that "aren't conservatives supposed to be about free markets?" You didn't say "isn't this author supposed to be about free markets?" Maybe that was your intention, but I couldn't get that from your statement.

Still, I think both you and Adam make a mistake in your claim about "free markets". Labor isn't in reality like goods. It's nowhere near as mobile and shippable. Furthermore, every country has national security laws and concerns, which limit movement of labor across borders. Strong national security is very much a conservative position. So to say that not allowing labor to cross the border is anti-conservative is just not true.

You are right that there are other issues like national security that could come into consideration. But the author is not making a national security argument. He is making a very explicit economic argument against expanding the guest worker program because of what impact it has on the labor market.

Quote

But if your and Adam's intention is to extend the discussion to a hypothetical world with no borders, and to discuss what a conservative position would look like in that kind of a world, that's fine for you, but it's not interesting at all to me at this time, because it's a complete hypothetical with almost no chance of becoming reality in anyone's lifetime who's alive today.

I don't believe either of us has ever advocated for "no borders". At least when it comes to security concerns and having a border patrol, security screening, visas, etc. It's worth noting that for the first hundred years of our country's existence we had virtually no limits on immigration, beyond screening people for disease. Not that I want to go all the way back to that, but it's not unprecedented.

In any case that's not what the article was talking about. It was talking about a very concrete, not hypothetical program to expand guest worker programs. I'm not against limits on immigration in all situations, including for economic reasons. I don't pretend to be a conservative or a free market purist. But I do respect free markets and in this situation, don't believe in setting limits/quotas without very compelling reasons. In my opinion, we're very far from the point where there is compelling case to set limits on the overall numbers coming in. We can and should drastically open up our system, including for guest workers.

Well, to be exact, you asked that "aren't conservatives supposed to be about free markets?" You didn't say "isn't this author supposed to be about free markets?" Maybe that was your intention, but I couldn't get that from your statement.

Still, I think both you and Adam make a mistake in your claim about "free markets". Labor isn't in reality like goods. It's nowhere near as mobile and shippable. Furthermore, every country has national security laws and concerns, which limit movement of labor across borders. Strong national security is very much a conservative position. So to say that not allowing labor to cross the border is anti-conservative is just not true.

But if your and Adam's intention is to extend the discussion to a hypothetical world with no borders, and to discuss what a conservative position would look like in that kind of a world, that's fine for you, but it's not interesting at all to me at this time, because it's a complete hypothetical with almost no chance of becoming reality in anyone's lifetime who's alive today.

"Free Markets" does NOT mean "no borders"; it means "controlled" borders. I would even argue that Free Markets don't work WITHOUT controlled borders.

BUT... in this context... "controlled borders" should mean pass/fail based on qualifications/background check rather than "numerosity".

As for "goods"? Suppose that BFE wants to import Goat Anus's to the USA and suppose there's a willing buyer. (Trust me on this: I've seen stranger things in the local farmers market) There is a procedure: EVERY Shipment gets inspected by USDA. Distant cousin works for USDA APHIS (Animal/Plant Health Inspection Service).